Skakel to Get New Trial

[Regi]

I remember now! Been so long since I read all this....

Oh, yeah. It's been too long and I'm still refreshing my memory!

Re: the Littleton/Tommy ablibi's, the way I remember it, Tommy had gone inside and watched the last part of a movie with Littleton and that would have been approx 9:45 pm, so Tommy wouldn't have had opportunity to have committed the murder.

Martha had been told to be home by 10:00 pm and that's where she appeared to be headed when she was murdered.

There's a map at this link.

http://www.marthamox.../maps/index.htm

Edited November 2, 2013 by regi

[Vincennes]

Oh, yeah. It's been too long and I'm still refreshing my memory!

Re: the Littleton/Tommy ablibi's, the way I remember it, Tommy had gone inside and watched the last part of a movie with Littleton and that would have been approx 9:45 pm, so Tommy wouldn't have had opportunity to have committed the murder.

Martha had been told to be home by 10:00 pm and that's where she appeared to be headed when she was murdered.

There's a map at this link.

http://www.marthamox.../maps/index.htm

I hate it when I read these books and then can't remember what was in them ! Why do I bother ? I thought there was a tree outside Martha's bedroom that had given Michael the opportunity to look into Marth's bedroom. Is that memory incorrect? Because there doesn't seem to be any tree on the map anywhere close.

Also, why was Littleton an initial suspect when Tommy said that he had gone in with him. I do remember Tommy saying that. I'm just wondering how they got to Littleton. Who, by the way, I saw interviewed at the time of Michael's trial and he said that this had pretty much ruined his life.... That seems so sad because he had pretty much just been hired recently and hadn't even had much time to figure those little monsters out.

[Regi]

I hate it when I read these books and then can't remember what was in them !

(Well, you know, it happens with movies, too, right? It does w/me. )

I think you did what I did in regard to that negroid hair on the blanket and that's why we didn't recall it. I think we'd completely disregarded that hair (and so it was put out of minds) because it was likely attributed to a specific first responder.

I thought there was a tree outside Martha's bedroom that had given Michael the opportunity to look into Marth's bedroom. Is that memory incorrect? Because there doesn't seem to be any tree on the map anywhere close.

Wow, that's observant!

I think the purpose of the map was to show the orientation of the locations of the Skakel and Moxley homes, where the attack/murder occurred, and then the discovery site.

why was Littleton an initial suspect when Tommy said that he had gone in with him. I do remember Tommy saying that. I'm just wondering how they got to Littleton. Who, by the way, I saw interviewed at the time of Michael's trial and he said that this had pretty much ruined his life.... That seems so sad because he had pretty much just been hired recently and hadn't even had much time to figure those little monsters out.

I think it was the Skakel's who pointed to Littleton, which doesn't make a lick of sense since Littleton was Tommy's alibi. I've read that they've gone so far as to accuse him of actually being a serial murderer!

I've read that Kennedy pointed the finger at Littleton in his 2002 article which was printed after the trial.

To my knowledge, Littleton had moved in with the Skakel's just one day before the murder, and yeah, I've read that the accusations essentially destroyed his life. (That since the event, his life went into a downhill spiral.)

Edited November 2, 2013 by regi

[Kowalski]

Good article here. Thought others might be interested.

Attorney Sherman's failure to point an accusatory finger at T. Skakel was and is inexplicable," Bishop writes. "Given the evidence of T. Skakel's culpability available to Attorney Sherman before trial, there was no reasonable basis for his failure to shine the light of culpability on T. Skakel."

Bishop added that "given the strength of evidence regarding T. Skakel's direct involvement with the victim at the likely time of her death, consciousness of guilty evidence concerning T. Skakel's activities on the evening in question, the circumstantial evidence of his sexual interest in the victim and T.'s history of emotional instability, counsel's failure to pursue a third party claim against T. Skakel cannot be justified..."

Bishop then lays out his evidence implicating Tommy as Martha's killer. He begins with Tommy's statement to Greenwich police in 1975: that on the night Martha was murdered, he left her at about 9:30 and returned home to write a school report on Abraham Lincoln -- a report that teachers at the Brunswick School that he attended denied had ever been assigned. Tommy also told police he never left the house again that night.

Eighteen years later, Tommy told a different story to private investigators, hired by his father Rushton after this reporter's article in the Stamford Advocate and Greenwich Time described the flaws in the Greenwich police's investigation. Although written in 1982, the article was held from publication for nine years by top executives at the paper for reasons that have never been fully explained. Three months after the article was published in 1991, the state announced it had reopened the long-dormant investigation.

Rushton Skakel -- whose sister is Ethel Kennedy and whose family fortune was once considered the second largest in America [after that of the Henry Ford family] -- said in 1991 that he hired his own investigators "to clear the Skakel family name."

Translation: to pin the murder on someone else.

That unfortunate soul was Kenneth Littleton, a tutor hired by Rushton in 1975 to teach his two academically failing sons, Tommy and Michael, ages 17 and 15, respectively. Littleton moved into the Skakel home the night Martha was murdered. So eager were the Skakel investigators to blame Littleton for Martha's murder that they told anyone who would listen, including this reporter, that he may have been a serial killer.

That theory had been developed by the state's longtime chief investigator Jack Solomon. So strongly did Solomon believe in Littleton's guilt that in another of the case's bizarre developments, he testified as a defense witness for Michael.

A year after Michael's conviction, his cousin, Robert Kennedy Jr., wrote a 15,000-wordarticle in the Atlantic Monthly magazine, also naming Littleton as Martha's probable killer.

Meanwhile, Kennedy began pushing the preposterous theory that Martha, then 15-years-old, had been killed by two black men who had gone "caveman" on her. How two black men could have run around the Belle Haven section of Greenwich, one of the nation's wealthiest communities with its own private police force guarding its entrances, without a single person noticing them, remains unclear.

Judge Bishop also criticized Sherman for failing to pursue that theory.

Then, on Oct. 7, 1993, Tommy told Skakel investigator Willis [billy] Krebs, a former NYPD lieutenant, that he had lied to Greenwich police about his whereabouts the night of the murder. Tommy told Krebs that after leaving Martha and going home at 9:30, he returned outside, where Martha waited for him. He said he spent the next 20 minutes with her, engaging in mutual m********ion to orgasm. He returned home, he said, shortly before ten o'clock, which is the time the Greenwich police believed Martha had been murdered.

As Tommy spoke, he broke into tears. Tommy's attorney, Emanuel Margolis, who was present at the interview, stopped the questioning.

Rushton's Skakel had assured Krebs' boss, Jim Murphy, a former FBI supervisor, that the family would take public responsibility and seek psychiatric treatment for his sons if either were implicated in Martha's murder. Instead after Tommy's interview, he fired Murphy and Krebs.

Bishop also cited Tommy's "mental and emotional instability and his penchant for violent outbursts." This stemmed, according to police reports that Bishop said were available to Sherman, from Tommy's falling out of a moving car and at age 6 and "fracturing his head."

"In this court's view, Bishop wrote, "there is no reasonable justification... for Attorney Sherman not to have asserted a third party culpability defense centered on T. Skakel. Had he done so, there is a reasonable probability that the jury would have entertained a reasonable doubt as to the petitioner's [Michael's] guilt with the result that he likely would have been acquitted."

So where do we go from here? The state says it will appeal Bishop's decision to a higher court.

Ironically, it is the state prosecutors who convicted Michael that are now defending Sherman.

In a post-trial brief, Supervisory Assistant State's Attorney Susan Gill refuted many of Bishop's claims about Sherman by disputing Bishop's evidence that Tommy likely killed Martha.

"There is no indication in the evidence to suggest that anything happened between Martha and Tommy that would have caused him to lose his temper," Gill wrote. Rather in her brief, she suggests that since the two had already engaged in sex of some kind, Tommy had no motive to kill her.

This same evidence, she wrote, "would have been highly damaging" to Michael because it corroborated motive as well as what other witnesses said Michael had told them: that he had seen Tommy having a sexual encounter with Martha that night.

Those other witnesses, wrote Gill, stated that Michael was so "violent" and "screwed up" that when he found out about it, he hit her with a golf club. Therefore, Gill concluded, there is no evidence "that Sherman was ineffective in not offering this damaging evidence."

In his 135-page decision, Bishop accepts without equivocation that Martha was killed at around 10 o'clock, ignoring the state's alternative theory, held by Solomon's successor Garr, that Martha was murdered after midnight.

Nor does Bishop mention in his ruling that Michael admitted to Skakel investigators that he, too, lied to the Greenwich police about his whereabouts the night of the murder.

Whereas he told police in 1975 that he had gone to the home of his cousin Jim Terrien and returned home around 11 o'clock and gone straight to bed, he told Krebs on Aug 4, 1992, that around midnight he went to Martha's house, climbed a tree outside her window, yelled, "Martha, Martha," and m********ed in the tree. He said he then ran past what turned out to be the crime scene and said he could feel someone's presence in the very place her body would be discovered the next day.

Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/len-levitt/nypd-confidential_18_b_4169676.html

[+susieice]

No, prob, not remembering. I think I read the book too but I don't remember for sure ))

Anyway, it bothered me when Thomas' story changed and I didn't like the testimony from all of those in the drug rehab re. their memories of what was said. Heck, they were all there in the first place because of drugs. They all, including Michael, had to be strung out. On that jury I would have totally disregarded their testimony..........I can't even remember if I read that book or not and they are telling me they remember statements during that time from years ago.

The new trial should be interesting. Perhaps they will carry it on TV. I was still working then. Do you know if they carried the last one on TV ?

I read the book "Murder In Greenwich". It was written by Mark Furman of OJ fame (the "bad cop". He investigated this case and came up with evidence against Skakel, but it's been quite awhile since I did. If I remember right, didn't Skakel say he was under the tree mas.........? Don't think Saru will let me put that word in here.

[+susieice]

I hate it when I read these books and then can't remember what was in them ! Why do I bother ? I thought there was a tree outside Martha's bedroom that had given Michael the opportunity to look into Marth's bedroom. Is that memory incorrect? Because there doesn't seem to be any tree on the map anywhere close.

Also, why was Littleton an initial suspect when Tommy said that he had gone in with him. I do remember Tommy saying that. I'm just wondering how they got to Littleton. Who, by the way, I saw interviewed at the time of Michael's trial and he said that this had pretty much ruined his life.... That seems so sad because he had pretty much just been hired recently and hadn't even had much time to figure those little monsters out.

I read books and forget later also Vincennes. That was the name of the book I read and who wrote it, and yes, he did say he used to look in her window from that tree. It was on her parent's property. Furman mapped the whole scene out in the book. He didn't get a lot of co-operation from the local police.

http://www.audible.com/pd/Mysteries-Thrillers/Murder-In-Greenwich-Audiobook/B002UZMUAG?source_code=GO1DG9048SH080912&gclid=CL6Hn4mPz7oCFc-Y4AodMy0AHQ&mkwid=s1z9coEyT_dc&pkw=PLA&pmt=broad&pcrid=35178943929

Edited November 6, 2013 by susieice

[Regi]

I'd like to find Littleton's statement. I keep reading about the way Tommy's statements changed, but I haven't come across Littleton's statement.

Now, my memory might be failing me, but it seems that he said he was watching TV when Tommy came in from outside and he'd estimated the time based the movie he was watching.

I would almost swear he said that Tommy sat and watched the movie w/him and if I'm recalling that correctly, then I'm thinking I must have read it in Fuhrman's book.

Edited November 6, 2013 by regi

[Vincennes]

I'd like to find Littleton's statement. I keep reading about the way Tommy's statements changed, but I haven't come across Littleton's statement.

Now, my memory might be failing me, but it seems that he said he was watching TV when Tommy came in from outside and he'd estimated the time based the movie he was watching.

I would almost swear he said that Tommy sat and watched the movie w/him and if I'm recalling that correctly, then I'm thinking I must have read it in Fuhrman's book.

That's also what I remember and Fuhrman's book is the only one I read on the case. So it had to be mentioned in that one.

[Regi]

The record of the last Appeal ('09). (It's long, but there's good info. in between the legal mumbo-jumbo, especially re: the allegations made by Bryant.)

http://www.jud.ct.go...95/295CR131.pdf

Edit: Vincennes, there's mention in that document re: the tree you'd observed was absent from that diagram.

A witness stated he was under the impression that the tree Michael referenced to him was the same tree the body was found under.

Now, was there a tree by the window or not?

Edited November 6, 2013 by regi

[Regi]

(Vincennes, Dear, look again. There is a tree indicated near Martha's window in that diagram. )

Just for grins and giggles, I went looking for the Skakel and Moxley homes to see how they appear now and granted, this is 38 years later, but the area doesn't at all resemble Fuhrman's diagram and I don't know how it ever could have.

Edited November 6, 2013 by regi

[Vincennes]

The record of the last Appeal ('09). (It's long, but there's good info. in between the legal mumbo-jumbo, especially re: the allegations made by Bryant.)

http://www.jud.ct.go...95/295CR131.pdf

Edit: Vincennes, there's mention in that document re: the tree you'd observed was absent from that diagram.

A witness stated he was under the impression that the tree Michael referenced to him was the same tree the body was found under.

Now, was there a tree by the window or not?

A lot of information there about what went on as far as trial testimony. I do think I was able to confirm how I remembered the tree situation.. I remembered the one outside her window or that somehow gave him a vantage point for her room. However, I believe Martha's body was found by a friend on the way to Martha's house. That would put the tree she was found under toward the front of the house. It also says that she was found under a pine tree. At first that confirmed to me it's not the same tree because I don't think you could climb up and sit in a pine tree. The branches slop downward and really are not thick even if the pine tree is large, the branches are pretty thin.....I think a kid could climb up one and hang in it for a bit but not sit there comfortably and routinely. IMO I don't think it was the same tree. Thoughts ???

It also mentions that part of the broken golf club was found by her driveway about 70' away from her body. That's a heck of a distance. You strike someone in the head with a downward blow and the shaft sails up and away and over ??? Thoughts ?

There were two other things that struck me reading that. Martha's mother said Michael looked "hung over" when she first went over to look for Martha. I'm think that was taking what she observed to where she wanted it to go. You just wake up a 15 yr. old kid and he appears hung over ? Kids recover pretty fast. I'm not saying it's impossible, just a maybe an enlargement there. The other thing that gave toward that, however, was Michael first saying that he was drinking and stumbling, went into a blackout and didn't really remember and yet he comes up with a detail account of where he was down to the TV show ???

I got as far as the possible involvement of the Bryant kid and that did explain how those kids might have been there, known the neighborhood and had access to it. What I wondered was why have I never heard of them before ? I have read lists of kids that were at Skakel's that evening and no one mentions them ?

Thanks for the link, Regi, I really did need that refresher. They are going to have to start getting to these trials way quicker while I still remember the books !

[Regi]

IMO I don't think it was the same tree. Thoughts ???

Well, the problem is that that witness' statement is a different story...it's at least a different version. I'm wondering why he had the impression that the tree was the one under which her body was found instead of the tree by her window.

It also mentions that part of the broken golf club was found by her driveway about 70' away from her body. That's a heck of a distance. You strike someone in the head with a downward blow and the shaft sails up and away and over ??? Thoughts ?

It appears to me it was propelled in an upward swing in the initial attack and propelled in the general direction of where her body was found.

Martha's mother said Michael looked "hung over" when she first went over to look for Martha. I'm think that was taking what she observed to where she wanted it to go.

It appears to be accurate, so I wouldn't doubt her impression.

however, was Michael first saying that he was drinking and stumbling, went into a blackout and didn't really remember and yet he comes up with a detail account of where he was down to the TV show ???

That's a good point.

I got as far as the possible involvement of the Bryant kid and that did explain how those kids might have been there, known the neighborhood and had access to it. What I wondered was why have I never heard of them before ? I have read lists of kids that were at Skakel's that evening and no one mentions them ?

As far as I'm concerned, Bryant statements are not only unsupported, but are contradicted by the evidence.

Thanks for the link, Regi, I really did need that refresher.

You and me both!

Edited November 7, 2013 by regi

[Regi]

Just for grins and giggles, I went looking for the Skakel and Moxley homes to see how they appear now and granted, this is 38 years later, but the area doesn't at all resemble Fuhrman's diagram and I don't know how it ever could have.

Here's why Fuhrman's diagram doesn't resemble the site as it is today.

http://marthamoxley.com/news/04202Kgt.htm

[Vincennes]

Well, the problem is that that witness' statement is a different story...it's at least a different version. I'm wondering why he had the impression that the tree was the one under which her body was found instead of the tree by her window.

I don't know why he had that impression but that was also my impression. In fact, one of the things I do remember as a picture of Furhman at the site her body was found with another gentleman. At the time I thought there was a street behind them but now I can see it must have been the driveway. Going back now and looking at the map, the location of the body makes sense to me in a twisted sort of way. Taking the "drag marks" as shown into consideration I had thought at first they were pulling her away from the most direct pathway from the Skakel house. However, it really doesn't do that. Whoever killed her must have dragged her in an attempt to conceal where she was killed but they stayed away from the house. They wouldn't want to drag her close enough they could be seen. However, they were very determined to drag her 50'. So the area she was found in makes no sense to me. Why wouldn't they just leave her where she was killed ? There has to be a reason for that.

It appears to me it was propelled in an upward swing in the initial attack and propelled in the general direction of where her body was found.

We are probably just using different terminology here. I see it as propelled upward from the downward swing. JMO but I see whoever it was raising the golf club up even back behind their head in order to bring down such a forceful blow that it broke it. The moment it broke, it would then still have to be the force of that downward blow that propelled it up and away into the driveway area. They then used what was left of the shattered club to stab her in the neck. Now whether it went 70 ft. from the time it was broken over her head. I don't know and I'm inclined to think that's too far. I don't think a stumbling drunk 15 year old could muster that force of a blow. He could well foster a deadly blow no doubt and one that broke the club, yeah. But propel it 70 ' ???? To me, it would seem that he then stabbed with what he had left in his hands. And I have another question here. If she is running toward her house and the blow is received from behind her and breaks, the head of the club that flew the 70' would not go up and forward. It would go up and behind the back of the person swinging the club.. not in front of him . Wouldn't it ???

It appears to be accurate, so I wouldn't doubt her impression.

It just now strikes me as a "convenient" observation by a poor person just looking for an answer which she is entitled to.....Possible, oh yeah but I'm just at a maybe.

As far as I'm concerned, Bryant statements are not only unsupported, but are contradicted by the evidence.

My big question remains why did no one mention those kids were there before Kennedy "found" them ? Docs were there, Furhman was there, books, articles have been written and now they are turning up ???

!

Edited November 8, 2013 by Vincennes

[Vincennes]

This is a really interesting site. Lots of pictures. It was a pine tree where they found the body. I wished they had more pictures of the Moxley house and grounds or showing the proximity of the houses.

http://campyskakel.yuku.com/topic/1073/Trial-Exhibits-Photos-and-Links-to-Documents#.UnxD1jYo6M9

[Regi]

Here's an interesting article from 2012.

http://www.norwalkcitizenonline.com/news/article/The-wrong-Skakel-3971487.php

[Vincennes]

That is an interesting article. I have to point out again here, I'm not in anyway saying that Michael didn't do this. What I feel is it was a trial error when they allowed the testimony of the druggies....Any of them.

The other thing about this article was this :

"Michael told Greenwich police in 1975 that he returned from a friend’s house at about 11 p.m. and went to bed. On Aug. 4, 1992, he told Krebs he went out again at midnight, m********ed in a tree he said he climbed outside Martha’s window, then passed the murder scene, where he heard noises and ran home. Investigators later said there was no tree outside the house that reached Martha’s window, and that the only tree Michael could have climbed was at the scene of the crime."

Now come on, it shouldn't be that hard was there a tree by her window or wasn't there ? The picture of the body showed that her body was under a pine tree and not one you could climb and intend to stay there.

On the Furhman map it shows other trees. There are a lot of other trees in those trial photos. So why are they saying this one tree away from all the houses is the only one he could have climbed up in which just happens to be by the murder scene ?

Also, Michael said he passed the murder scene on the way home. Well it looks like an out of the way route to me if he went that way. I just think the reporting itself is what stinks most all of the time. You read it, then you have to go back to see which parts are true and which are not.

The article also really bad mouths Ethel Kennedy and I don't really think she has ever proven herself to be the law breaker the alluded to. Teddy's wife Joan, maybe had her moments but Ethel didn't do much to deserve that except keep her head down, mostly out of the news, and raise her kids. On the flip side of that coin Robert, Jr. seems to be trying way to hard to find a patsy. Accusing that babysitter was just wrong. He has made his own evidence unbelievable.

[Regi]

The other thing about this article was this :

"Michael told Greenwich police in 1975 that he returned from a friend’s house at about 11 p.m. and went to bed. On Aug. 4, 1992, he told Krebs he went out again at midnight, m********ed in a tree he said he climbed outside Martha’s window, then passed the murder scene, where he heard noises and ran home. Investigators later said there was no tree outside the house that reached Martha’s window, and that the only tree Michael could have climbed was at the scene of the crime."

Now come on, it shouldn't be that hard was there a tree by her window or wasn't there ?

Right?!

I'm pleased you pointed that out, Vincennes. (I'm sorry, I was too darned tired last night to comment about that article, or about any info at your link, but that's definitely one thing that stood out to me, too.)

I've come across photos of the Moxley home which show a tall cedar on the west side, but I've come across other photos (I think they were on that same site you'd linked to) which show there NOT to be a tree near Martha's bedroom.

At your link, there's Michael's statement in which he said that the tree he climbed was near the front door...that he called out for Martha, that he threw things at the window, but that he later found out it was her brother's window.

(That's the first I've heard that one!) I would think he would know which bedroom was Martha's.

I thought it was interesting how he stated that on his way back home, that he was paranoid and called out into the dark shrubbery at two places.

Diagrams at your link don't look like the one Fuhrman used in his book. I wouldn't be so danged picky about it except that I like/need to be oriented!

I know the houses were situated diagonally to one another, but I've misunderstood where precisely on the property the discovery site was.

Apparently, it was definitely on the west side of the home, but much closer to the back of the home than to the street.

Anyway...

Back to Michael's statement (and in reference to the next morning), he said he suggested to Martha's mother that she might be in their barn.

I thought that was a rather odd suggestion (it was a school day, at that), but the main thing to me is that he described himself as being in a sheer panic when confronted by Martha's mother. I think that was honest, because of course, he'd have no reason to feel any panic if he was innocent! )

I came across an article published about two months after the murder (I think it was the Newport News and the source was the NYTimes) which reported "After 20 minutes, or close to 9:30, Martha said goodnight. Michael Skakel, who is 15, was quoted by newsmen the day after the murder as saying that he saw his brother Thomas talking to Martha on their lawn shortly before she left."

Edited November 8, 2013 by regi

[Vincennes]

I can't figure out the exact relationship of the houses and/or Moxley's house/driveway area that they are talking about as to whether it is to the front of to the back. It gets confusing because I think that driveway also wraps to the back of the house ??? Not sure and I've been looking at every picture I can find.

I did find in the Chicago Tribune report on the babysitter's testimony that he says that he took Michael and Thomas away to the cousin's house the next day....Not the night of the murder. So I think RFK's statement that their "growing" distance, 11 miles away conveniently changed the date and the time of that trip. The babysitter did stumble a bit as I understand it on who's idea it was that they should leave the area for a while.

However, I did also find this

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2002/05/18/prosecution-testimony-in-skakel-trial-focuses-on-unusual-school/

This is sad. I have read before that school was a concentration camp setting and it looks that way, pretty awful. It doesn't really relate to the trial at all, it just made me think maybe being richer than God does not always have its perks.

I also found an article that quoted Martha's diary 41 days before the murder in which she said Michael was acting oddly regarding her relationship with Tommy and that "she needed to stop going over there." Too bad she disregarded her intuition.

[Regi]

I also found an article that quoted Martha's diary 41 days before the murder in which she said Michael was acting oddly regarding her relationship with Tommy and that "she needed to stop going over there." Too bad she disregarded her intuition.

Those boys were already known to be bad news, but Martha's words strongly suggest the motive of her murder.

There can be no doubt about it, that murder was committed in an all out rage.

Martha's attention was toward Tommy and he appeared to be getting what he wanted from Martha with no effort, so he didn't have a reason to have worked up the rage demonstrated in that murder.

I can't figure out the exact relationship of the houses and/or Moxley's house/driveway area that they are talking about as to whether it is to the front of to the back. It gets confusing because I think that driveway also wraps to the back of the house ??? Not sure and I've been looking at every picture I can find.

I don't think it did, but I now recall that the friend who'd found the body seemed to indicate that it was in the backyard....

Regardless, it appears the entire crime took place on the west side of the property which was the side closest to the Skakel property. (The Moxley home faced the backyard of the Skakel property, and was to the southeast.)

The babysitter did stumble a bit as I understand it on who's idea it was that they should leave the area for a while.

I think Littleton's relationship to the Skakel family strongly influenced his behavior/statements.

Edit: I want to add about those Elan witnesses claiming that Michael confessed or alluded to them that he'd committed the murder or could have, their statements wouldn't have had any bearing on my interpretation of what happened.

I'd have convicted him without those statements.

Edited November 8, 2013 by regi

[Vincennes]

snipped/ Regi - "I don't think it did, but I now recall that the friend who'd found the body seemed to indicate that it was in the backyard....

Regardless, it appears the entire crime took place on the west side of the property which was the side closest to the Skakel property. (The Moxley home faced the backyard of the Skakel property, and was to the southeast.)"

The fact their home FACED the Skakel property was the piece I wasn't getting. Thank you ! ))))

I will say that I really don't think they should take that property down now....Because their pictures are terrible. They don't show Moxley property well and not the relationships of the properties. I can't tell looking at the front of one of them in one picture and then the front of the other in another picture and the aerials I can find not identify clearly. From the air, they all look pretty big and pretty much the same to me.

Now I have to go back and relook at things !

Edited November 8, 2013 by Vincennes

[Regi]

The fact their home FACED the Skakel property was the piece I wasn't getting. Thank you ! ))))

From the air, they all look pretty big and pretty much the same to me.

Yeah, I've read that the Moxley property was 3 acres.

From the '09 appeal doc., the Moxley home was "200 yards away"... she was "struck down halfway" and the body was dragged nearly "100 yards" from where the murder occurred.

Off subject, I think it's interesting that Martha's clothing was pulled down, but there was no evidence of sexual assault. What are your thoughts about that?

Henry Lee's opinion seems to be that that occurred before the attack because of the amount of blood on the inside of the pants, but I disagree since the body was dragged.

(I think I need to go back and re-read/re-consider his opinion. )

[Vincennes]

OMG, I have been going over this thread for so long trying to find a post I made that had a link to some original trial information.... I always think, they already know that, so don't post it. Now, with all of the new trial things, I was unable to pull it up again.

Here is the original link:

http://campyskakel.y...nts#.Un03ADYo6M-

You have to walk down to this : http://campyskakel.y...09#.Un033TYo6M8

Then you have to go down to the next TRANSCRIPT of a later interview with Michael. I have tested my patience at this point and cannot add that link.

Anyway, what is there are TWO ENTIRELY different accounts both from Michael one a younger audio and a later transcript. None of which remotely resemble RFK's latest two other versions. That Michael had an alibi, that a blank gang did it or RFKs original, Littleton did it.

If you Listen to the audio, Michael seems to be excluding Littleton.... in that he never saw him after dinner....or was Littleton (after Martha, you don't know) but there is a "Frank" mentioned in the audio (I think that's the name he is saying) a chauffeur who lived in their basement whose whereabouts was unknown that night ???? Well, I'm guessing "Frank" must have had a solid alibi, for which I think "Frank" should thank God.

Would you ever get so rich that you would think you would have a right to just sell other people "up the river?"

I still think this retrial was the gift of an over zealous prosecution and probably a Republican judge who made a big mistakes at the time. They should be faulted for allowing this to happen.. The prosecution had enough, they didn't really need to go for the druggie testimony....especially allowing in transcript from one who had OD'd No, after reviewing these audio and transcripts statements of lies I am all but convinced he did it on just the magnitude of these lies alone. The prosecution didn't need to error in order to win. nor should have the judge have helped them !

Edit: I wanted to show the edit in that I walked away from this post thinking about it. In the end, after hearing this and reading this, I do still think Thomas is as viable suspect as Michael. Skakel's own private investigator thought that.... but I don't really care about which one of them does the time. I don't, I'm sorry, I know that's wrong but I don't. It's actually Rushton Skakel Sr. who should pay for it. He was the one who had walked away and left "Lord of the Flies." Mrs. Moxley, the one up waiting for Martha to be home at 10:00 was the one who ended up paying for what he did.

Edited November 8, 2013 by Vincennes

[Regi]

Here is the original link:

http://campyskakel.y...nts#.Un03ADYo6M-

That's a great link! I'm reading through the transcript of the Probable Cause Hearing.

From testimony:

The friend who found Martha's body testified that she lived behind Martha and she was cutting through Martha's yard to get to another friend's house when she found Martha's body.

Det. Keegan testified that the tree at/under which Martha was found was 161' from the house.

There were three sections of a Tony Penna golf club found. Two pieces- the head and an 8" piece of shaft- were found in close proximity of one another and within the circular section of the driveway which is encompassed by Walsh lane. The third section of shaft was found at the murder site and at the beginning of the "drag path". (There was about a 12" path of blood leading to the body.)

Keegan believes that the handle, which was searched for, but never found, was deliberately broken off and missing from the scene because it was marked with the Skakel name.

[Vincennes]

The fact that whoever it was knew to remove the portion of the club that had the Skakel name on it really says a couple of things to me. The first, whoever was not so drunk that they were not aware of the name on the shaft. It really dismisses the theory re. the black kids just passing through and decided to get Martha. I don't think it's very probable they would notice a name on that shaft, remember it after a murder and remove it in the dark. If they did just happen to notice it, why would they remove it ? Wouldn't it be better for them to leave the name as a pointer to someone else? I don't think any of us thought it was them but IMO it definitely points away from any such involvement.

One thing I do think is worthy of note. Michael's first story, the one in the transcript, says he saw her leave and went to bed and stayed there. I think there is a second version of that story, that he went to bed, got up and ended up in the tree. The third which I believe is the story he has come up with as an adult is that he left with five other people and went to his cousins house. What I can't understand is if that is anywhere near an accurate account, if I was just flailing around for an alibi, why wouldn't you use the one that involved other people knowing where you were first ? If there was any truth in that story at all, it's certainly what I would have told the police at the time, I wouldn't have said I was by myself in a tree. Although, I find it hard to believe five people are going to lie for him now. Now this is just my thought but I think as years went by he found that there were glitches in those five memories. Possible because those activities would not have carried that much date significance to those not involved. They had probably taken a ride with Michael in the car.....just let's say, a day of two before or even after and he has now latched on to that.